To me, this movie is perfection.

An Exercise In Nonsense

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

After the p-rnographic opening sequence there are about 15 minutes of compelling 70s British crime drama. Then Fox goes on the run and the whole movie swirls irretrievably into the toilet. There's more p-rn, this time with Anita Pallenberg looking like she's strung out on heroin. There's a boy(?) in a dress or is that just a fat ugly girl? There's Mick Jagger looking as pale as death. I can't be the only one on Earth who thinks this - isn't he about the ugliest human being not named Carrot Top or Steven Tyler (Aerosmith)? What a mess. Roeg must have consumed a metric tonne of drugs in his day to have churned out movie after movie after movie of self-indulgent, p- rnographic drivel.

I first saw Performance whenever it first came out, the film everyone was raving about and which was thought to be very much of its time. I have no memories of it at all, except that I didn't understand it, was a little frightened by it, and was thoroughly confused by it. Whenever I heard it mentioned, usually in glowing terms, I would think 'well, a little more of the hippy-sh*t memory lane cr*p. Forty-seven years on, I've seen it again and I have to say it stands the test of time remarkably well. By way of comparison Easy Rider, which I saw then and 30 years later, in my view, doesn't (or rather was does stand the test of time isn't the Peter Fonda character's idealism, but the Dennis Hopper character's cynicism).I suspect that when it was written, by Donald Cammell who also co-directed with Nicolas Roeg, although these days the film is always trailed as Roeg's film, the two of them thought they were exploring ideas and their age, ideas about sexuality and identity and conventional as opposed to alternative living.They were also examining, to a lesser extent, different forms of insanity, and also examining what it means to 'perform'. If, like me, you believe that what a film maker thinks she or he is doing and what the film actually becomes are quite often entirely different, you will be relieved to hear that if those ideas are examined, they most certainly don't dominate or suffocate the film. There is more to it which carries it all very well.Forty-seven years on, in fact, ideas which will have been seen as groundbreaking when the film was released (and which horrified Warner Bros, who financed the film), tend to look a little silly and naive if they are still intended to be profound (and are more proof, if more proof were needed, that nothing dates faster than this year's fashion). What we get - 47 years on - is a thoroughly entertaining, visually often stunning, intriguing look at two men, the sadistic gangster and the reclusive rock star, both utterly narcissistic and controlling, who meet by chance and pretty much recognise themselves in the other.It is an irony that rather than wilt, Performance has matured over those 47 years, and what we get is a thoroughly engrossing piece of cinema which is worth every one of the 105 minutes.Check it out. And if some of you disagree with me that it can no longer be taken seriously in the sense it was when it first came out, well, peace man, now go and count your collection of antique joss sticks.

Performance is one of the all-time great psychedelic films. But while it has its share of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, its scope goes a fair bit further. It's essentially an avant-garde film in many ways and, therefore, is one that will turn-off a lot of viewers. But if you can take its experimentation you will be rewarded, as this is a real one-off and a definite high-point of counterculture movies as a whole. It was helmed by two unique artists, Nicolas Roeg and Donald Cammell; both of whom would go on to make other very interesting films. For my money Performance is arguably the best thing either one of them ever did.The narrative is effectively two stories colliding with one and other. It starts out as a crime film and then becomes an oddball drama, all the while gradually mutating into something increasingly stranger as it progresses. In summary it is about a gangster called Chas who is on the run who hides in the house of Turner, a reclusive rock star, while there odd inner psychological transformations occur that ultimately affect both characters in extreme ways. Identity is at the heart of this particular story. After being given hallucinogenic mushrooms, Chas has a vivid trip where he experiences revelations including an unexpected identification with Turner (even his name suggests he has the ability to turn you), a man who seems to be his polar opposite on the surface. Both characters in fact find that there are aspects in the other that they connect with, leading to Chas dressed like a counter-culture drop-out and Turner displaying an increasing fascination with the criminal persona. This is manifested in 'Memo From Turner' where Chas imagines Turner as his crime boss, it's a scene all the more impressive seeing as its one of the very earliest examples of what would go on to be known as the pop video.If nothing else though, Performance is visually a tour de force. It exhibits the highly experimental, bold editing that would go on to typify later films that Roeg would go on to direct. For this reason it certainly feels from a visual perspective that Roeg was the main influence; while story-content seems to have come primarily from Cammell. Whatever the case, this is a consistently interesting looking film, with disorientating edits and inventive camera-work. The grungy, crumbling den in which the majority of the action takes place is ripe for this kind of treatment. Its cluttered, decadent interiors create an atmosphere all of their own and add a considerable amount to the overall effect of the film.It is also helped considerably by an unusual cast who work extremely well together. Mick Jagger plays the androgynous Turner with ease. It's a role you could argue he was born to play for obvious reasons but Turner is more than a Jagger clone and is ultimately a somewhat strange character that would not have been nearly so compelling if it had not been for the fact that Jagger illustrates him so well. James Fox, as Chas, is probably even better still. He convinces as both the hard man criminal and the confused hybrid character he is by the end. He brings to the screen a definite charisma that works very well. Anita Pallenberg also makes an indelible impression as Pherber, one of Turner's groupies. I had only previously seen her in Barbarella as the Black Queen. She was a lot of fun in that one but as Pherber she is much better and incredibly sexy into the bargain as well.It's certainly not a film for everyone but there is a lot to like here if you have a taste for the odder side of cinema, especially if you like it with a dash of counter-cultural psychedelia.

This movie is a real mixed bag for me. I was totally into its first half and was absolutely loving it for its creativity but the about half way through the movie starts to become a totally different movie, the moment Mick Jagger makes his appearance.Thing that made me love its first half, was that it was being a very British crime flick, focusing on criminals, that got shot and told beautifully. Truly in an artistic manner, with some experimental camera-work and editing, that all worked out well and captivating for the movie.I was so disappointed that not the whole movie was being like this. The second half of the movie is far more psychedelic and doesn't really seem all too concerned about telling its story. So disappointing, since everything that got buildup in the first half of the movie was being very promising and I was anxious to see what would happen next. But it's almost as of halfway through the movie comes to a stop and after that the movie hardly progresses any more story-wise. It becomes more a movie about its characters, which was just all less interesting to watch, in my opinion.In a way you could say that Jagger ruined the movie for me but I don't blame just him. It more was the story and the different approach of its second half that it all less interesting to watch and caused his character to work out as mostly an annoying one.James Fox was definitely better. He is not a big name actor but chances are you have already seen him in something. He doesn't always play leading roles, as he does in this movie but he definitely is a more than capable actor, that also has plenty of charisma to him.I still rate the movie quite highly, simply because of the reason that it's being a very original and creative movie, that also still works out for most part as well.So in short, it has a great and artistic first half and a less impressive and more messy second one. But overall the movie remains a more than good and original watch, though it's most definitely not a movie for just everyone.7/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/